Trump says he didn't say Mexico would write US a check for border wall. But he did

[tulc]

Trump revises history of pitch for Mexico wall payment

Trump said, "When I say Mexico is going to pay for the wall, that's what I said. Mexico is going to pay. I didn't say they're going to write me a check for $20 billion or $10 billion."

Trump’s campaign called a one-time payment of $5 billion-$10 billion "an easy decision for Mexico." The country’s other option would be to lose billions more in impounded remittances from immigrants working in the United States and increased fees on U.S. temporary visas and border crossing cards.

Trump as president has thrown out a number of other ways for Mexico to pay for the wall. Now he says it will be "indirect" through the trade deal (though that’s unsupported).

But his rewrite of a famous campaign pitch doesn’t clear. We rate this statement False.

tulc(KAG by lying over and over again?)

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Trump Campaigned on Mexico Paying for the Wall. Now He Says He 'Obviously' Didn't Mean It

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What he did not say is HOW they will pay, and there are ways of collecting over a period of time, and I think they will, I think Mexico probably needs our business more than we need theirs. Is Mexico no longer concerned about trade deals with the USA? Of course they are, dollars and cents have no political loyalties. I missed the part where he claimed Mexico would agree to outright write a check for a barrier on US soil. At this point though, it really does not matter WHO is paying for securing the southern boarder, what matters is secure boarders for the greater good (safety) of legal American citizens. Did you even listen to the video?

Again he said they would pay for the wall, but when he said it, he did not say HOW, and that is the difference between twisting someone's words and trying to fit them into what one wants them to say, and the truth of what was said.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

What he did not say is HOW they will pay, and there are ways of collecting over a period of time, and I think they will, I think Mexico probably needs our business more than we need theirs. Is Mexico no longer concerned about trade deals with the USA? Of course they are, dollars and cents have no political loyalties. I missed the part where he claimed Mexico would agree to outright write a check for a barrier on US soil. At this point though, it really does not matter WHO is paying for securing the southern boarder, what matters is secure boarders for the greater good (safety) of legal American citizens. Did you even listen to the video?

Again he said they would pay for the wall, but when he said it, he did not say HOW, and that is the difference between twisting someone's words and trying to fit them into what one wants them to say, and the truth of what was said.

So please tell us, how will Mexico pay for it?

The trade deal idea is ridiculous. Even if it was signed (which it isn’t) and if it will close the trade deficit (which is questionable), that money doesn’t go to the US treasury - it goes to consumers and businesses.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So please tell us, how will Mexico pay for it?

The trade deal idea is ridiculous. Even if it was signed (which it isn’t) and if it will close the trade deficit (which is questionable), that money doesn’t go to the US treasury - it goes to consumers and businesses.

Since I am neither a mind reader nor a professional economist, I'll have to wait and see, the same as you. While you might be of the opinion that the idea is ridiculous, do you know whether it is one idea of many ideas, or the details of this particular idea? Do we do business with Mexico or not? I suspect the cost for Mexico doing business with us will increase, just a hunch though.

 

[Yekcidmij]

So please tell us, how will Mexico pay for it?

They will pay for it by sending over people to work here....

Sounds like everyone forgot to ask him to define what he meant by "pay." Bad on everyone for assuming he meant money.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Since I am neither a mind reader nor a professional economist, I'll have to wait and see, the same as you. While you might be of the opinion that the idea is ridiculous, do you know whether it is one idea of many ideas, or the details of this particular idea? Do we do business with Mexico or not? I suspect the cost for Mexico doing business with us will increase, just a hunch though.

Cost of Mexico doing business with us will be higher? That does not make money for the US government, it hurts US citizens. Either we will pay more for goods (tariffs are usually passed on to the consumer, or we will pay more for the same products if production shifts to the US) or Mexico will just decrease how much business it does with us.

Best case scenario is that exports to Mexico increase, but this money goes to the producer of the product, not the federal government.

We could decrease aid to Mexico, but that is $320 million per year - not enough to cover the wall. Also, that aid goes to help Mexico do stuff that we like and would make things worse if cut:
“The largest chunk of U.S. aid goes toward law enforcement — including helping Mexican authorities capture drug lords — supporting improvements to the Mexican judicial system and security, including along Mexico’s southern border, helping stem the flow of immigrants from Central and South America.”
U.S. provides aid worth $320 million a year to Mexico; experts say yanking it could hurt

This idea that Mexico will pay for the wall is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Cost of Mexico doing business with us will be higher? That does not make money for the US government, it hurts US citizens. Either we will pay more for goods (tariffs are usually passed on to the consumer, or we will pay more for the same products if production shifts to the US) or Mexico will just decrease how much business it does with us.

"Finally, Trump could take a page out of President Obama’s playbook and fund the border wall using a trade vehicle — specifically the implementing legislation for a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The fast track law, which governs consideration of trade agreements, contains language allowing the president to include provisions which he deems “strictly necessary or appropriate” to the respective trade agreement. This is the same broad language President Obama used to add Trade Adjustment Assistance to the Korea free trade agreement. Similar provisions were included in the original NAFTA legislation.

Under this line of reasoning, Trump could include wall funding to a re-negotiated NAFTA, arguing that a secure border is critical to the enforcement of a cross-border trade agreement with Mexico. Even better? He could require Mexico to pay for it.

If the Republican Congress continues to block the president from accomplishing one of his signature campaign priorities, Trump should turn to other areas of existing law. The best option, however, would be for Republicans in Congress to do their job.

Trump won, in part, on his promises to reform the country’s immigration system — reforms that many Americans support. If Congress wants to have a say in what those reforms should be, they should actively participate in the debate. Obstinance is one policy choice, certainly, but it’s a far cry from actually governing. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said in 2010, “complete the danged fence.” - Rachel Bovard (@RachelBovard) is the senior director of policy for The Conservative Partnership, a nonprofit group headed by former South Carolina Sen. SOURCE
​

Btw, $5 billion for the wall is not breaking the government budget, it amounts to one tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%) of the federal budget.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

"Finally, Trump could take a page out of President Obama’s playbook and fund the border wall using a trade vehicle — specifically the implementing legislation for a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The fast track law, which governs consideration of trade agreements, contains language allowing the president to include provisions which he deems “strictly necessary or appropriate” to the respective trade agreement. This is the same broad language President Obama used to add Trade Adjustment Assistance to the Korea free trade agreement. Similar provisions were included in the original NAFTA legislation.

Under this line of reasoning, Trump could include wall funding to a re-negotiated NAFTA, arguing that a secure border is critical to the enforcement of a cross-border trade agreement with Mexico. Even better? He could require Mexico to pay for it.

If the Republican Congress continues to block the president from accomplishing one of his signature campaign priorities, Trump should turn to other areas of existing law. The best option, however, would be for Republicans in Congress to do their job.

Trump won, in part, on his promises to reform the country’s immigration system — reforms that many Americans support. If Congress wants to have a say in what those reforms should be, they should actively participate in the debate. Obstinance is one policy choice, certainly, but it’s a far cry from actually governing. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said in 2010, “complete the danged fence.” - Rachel Bovard (@RachelBovard) is the senior director of policy for The Conservative Partnership, a nonprofit group headed by former South Carolina Sen. SOURCE
​

Btw, $5 billion for the wall is not breaking the government budget, it amounts to one tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%) of the federal budget.

The is the link provided by your article to explain Obama’s maneuver:
Linking the US-Korea FTA and TAA: What's Really Necessary and Appropriate?

According to this article, Obama did link a domestic spending bill to a trade agreement. However, there is no indication that this was funded by a foreign government. It was funded by the US.

Here is the source linked in your article about the president’s authority:
19 U.S. Code § 4202 - Trade agreements authority

So, he potentially could have modified NAFTA if he made an argument that it was necessary. But, he already scrapped NAFTA. The funding pieces all have to do with tariffs. Increasing tariffs are paid by the company doing the importing and passed on to consumers. So, the US could generate more tariff revenue, but this money would ultimately come from the Americans buying those products, not from Mexico.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Btw, $5 billion for the wall is not breaking the government budget, it amounts to one tenth (1/10) of one percent (1%) of the federal budget.

Is this a good reason for a purchase though?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Is this a good reason for a purchase though?

I think saving American lives is a good reason. Maybe some businesses will be heartbroken you know like the heroin business, human trafficking business, and all the businesses that hire illegals. Yeah could cause them grief. But slowing illegal immigration down to an almost dead halt, will more than pay for the wall, for the costs of services and care for illegal migrants. It doesn't just make sense, it makes good sense to secure the boarder, not to mention Republicans and Democrats have agreed on the need to for decades. What does not makes sense is leaving gaps in the boarder, it only serves to funnel traffic through different paths.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

They will pay for it by sending over people to work here....

Sounds like everyone forgot to ask him to define what he meant by "pay." Bad on everyone for assuming he meant money.

Yeah they will pay when they experience the economic impact of migrants from other countries because they cannot cross into the United States. They will pay when the crimes are committed on their soil, and not ours. Reality often has a sobering effect. People hurting on both sides of the boarder.

 

[tulc]

(snip) What does not makes sense is leaving gaps in the boarder, it only serves to funnel traffic through different paths.

Like through airports and by boats and trucks you mean? Oh wait, that's how it pretty much comes in now. This is a report using President Trumps administration own statistics:
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's false claim about drug smuggling

TRUMP: “Remember drugs. The drugs are pouring into this country. They don’t go through the ports of entry. When they do, they sometimes get caught.” — Rose Garden news conference on Friday.

THE FACTS: He’s wrong in saying drug smugglers don’t or only rarely use official border crossings for their trafficking. Land ports of entry are their primary means for getting drugs into the country, not stretches of the border without barriers, says the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The agency said in a November report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. though entry ports, where they are stopped and subject to inspection. They also employ buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

or here:
Most hard drugs smuggled through legal border crossings

CBP statistics show 81 percent of the 265,500 pounds of hard drugs caught at the U.S.-Mexico border from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016 were stopped by customs officers at ports of entry, rather than by Border Patrol agents working in the desert and wilderness between ports.

Hard drugs normally are not driven on remote roads or hauled in backpacks through the desert, where they would be stopped by Border Patrol agents or come up against a border wall, although court records show agents catch hard drugs at highway checkpoints, such as the 5 pounds of heroin hidden in a man’s pants March 28 at the Interstate 19 checkpoint.

A far more common scenario in federal court cases in Tucson involves stashing hard drugs in vehicle dashboards or strapping them under clothes and trying to smuggle them through ports of entry staffed by customs officers.

So basically he wants to spend billions of tax dollars on something that's already failed before the first new stretch of wall has even been built.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[The Barbarian]

So basically he wants to spend billions of tax dollars on something that's already failed before the first new stretch of wall has even been built.

Yep. He's betting that the American people are stupid enough to believe him. Currently, he's losing the bet.